Edward Snowden TV interview from 2014-01-26

[peter grimes]

If someone tells you something with an expectation that you won't tell anyone else, it's a betrayal if you do.

The problem is that people associate "betrayal" with not being a good thing, when it's actually a neutral term.

But isn't that more about expectations? The confessor expects his listener to not reveal what's discussed. That's not always a reasonable expectation. There are protections in place for certain scenarios, like doctor-patient, attorney-client, parishoner-priest, etc.

If a friend confesses to you, you're not actually duty-bound unless you impose that constraint upon yourself.

In this case, even if Snowden signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement, I don't think he should be found guilty of violating it because what he was revealing was against the law (for the sake of this example). If you work for a bank, sign an NDA, and then blow the whistle on money laundering for drug cartels, which party should be prosecuted? I don't think the employee should be prosecuted. I think the bank managers who approved the laundering should be, and the corporation itself should be put to death

 

[Traitorfish]

Second, it's absurd to say that "betrayal" is neutral. It's not at all. It's about being untrustworthy and disgraceful.

Which in practice means not that we regard traitors as untrustworthy and disgraceful, but that we regard those we deem untrustworthy and disgraceful as traitors. Hence your nation's virtual deification of Washington, a man who did rather more than leak classified documents to the press.

People have a way of making things suit themselves like that.

 

[Akka]

Hence your nation

 

[dutchfire]

"I'm a traitor. America sucks, so I won't be going back."

Ah, he shares my opinion.

 

[Traitorfish]

You're not a yank? Must be getting you mixed up, my mistake.

But you take my point, that whether or not "treason" has the firm connotations you attribute to it, it's application is anything but objective.

 

[Akka]

You're not a yank? Must be getting you mixed up, my mistake.

But you take my point, that whether or not "treason" has the firm connotations you attribute to it, it's application is anything but objective.

That people on opposite sides tend to downplay or highlight some specific and contradictory aspects of historical facts and figures is a given. One's glorious conqueror is another's oppressive tyrant, one's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

But actually, the very fact that Americans don't call Washington a traitor tends to strongly support the "traitor is a word with very negative connotation" argument. In fact, it's pretty rare, if not downright unheard of, to see non-ironical/non-deliberately provocative/etc. use of "traitor" in a positive light.

 

[Tahuti]

But actually, the very fact that Americans don't call Washington a traitor tends to strongly support the "traitor is a word with very negative connotation" argument. In fact, it's pretty rare, if not downright unheard of, to see non-ironical/non-deliberately provocative/etc. use of "traitor" in a positive light.

Washington betrayed Britain, so he could found America. It is the latter part that is important to Americans and appreciably affect modern-day Americans' lives, or so it is perceived. He doesn't appreciably affect modern-day Britishers' lives, so most British people do not really care and so refrain from calling him a traitor.

 

[Aroddo]

So ... Edward Snowden betrayed the NSA, so he could warn America?